176 voters found in one house in Phulbari; two communities live together in another
From Our Correspondent
PHULBARI, April 21: A village in Phulbari has a household with 176 voters and another in the same village has people from two different communities. Yet another household, which in 2005 had four voters, has 84 electors today—a jump of more than 4,000% in two decades.
Members of the Phulbari regional unit of the Garo Students’ Union (GSU) discovered such households during a review of the electoral rolls.
“We have always felt things were wrong in terms of the number of voters that kept increasing at incredible rates. We decided to look into the voters’ list of 2025, and what we found was shocking to say the least,” the unit’s president, Chuang Neyzer R. Marak, said on Tuesday.
The three cases were found in Kalapani village of the Chibinang area under the Phulbari Assembly constituency. The union believes a deeper review of the list would unearth more such alarming cases.
In the first case, the union said the household had 14 voters in 2005.
“Going by the 176 voters today, this household could have more than 250 people, including minors. What is even more interesting is that most of those registered as voters are between 30 and 50 years. So, not all of them may have the same parents,” Marak said.
The GSU unit wondered how they had been added to the electoral rolls in Meghalaya if their parents are not the same and they are living on rent. And if their parents were the same, the father-mother duo should be 250 years old or the children in the house would have to be adopted from around the country and beyond, the union said.
“If these voters are genuine, how were they not listed in the 2005 rolls and are suddenly in the 2025 rolls despite having been eligible 20 years ago? In the household where the number of voters rocketed from four to 84, the situation is even more blatant. How can a couple have 80 children in just 20 years, with most of them already of voting age and beyond? Some are older than the parents themselves,” Marak asked.
The GSU unit found it more puzzling that two fundamentally opposed communities were supposedly living under the same roof, raising suspicion about the possession of fake voter IDs.
“It is hard to believe that people following two opposing belief systems share the same roof and eat from the same kitchen,” Marak said.
The GSU felt that these three cases put the spotlight on the state’s Election Department, which should have noticed the anomalies. It said that those responsible for such irregularities, deliberate or otherwise, should be held accountable.
“You can’t just brush these cases under the carpet. These are live cases of influx at our doorstep, and those in authority are completely missing their lines. Whether it was done for money or for the sake of humanity, we don’t care. A serious review of such voters needs to be undertaken right away,” the GSU’s Phulbari unit president said.
Influx has been one of the major issues plaguing the plain belt of Garo Hills, with locals and senior leaders raising red flags. Most feel that the negligence of officials entrusted with checking such activities allows those from outside the state (Assam and Bangladesh) to acquire vital documents.
The indigenous communities, however, hope that such voters would be weeded out through the Special Intensive Revision of the poll rolls expected to start in Meghalaya soon.
